Refused Insurance Cover

U

UptodateK

Active Member
Joined
13 December 2012
Messages
34
Location
Greater Manchester
Visit site
Has anyone been refused horse insurance cover, and if so what did you do?

I've been with NFU for a number of years with 4 different horses, and they have been brilliant, but i've made several claims with them over the years including 2 loss of horse claims which they've paid out for.

I'm in the processing of buying my next horse, and called them today for a quote, but the underwriters have refused to insure me due to the amount of money I've claimed over the years.

I know I've got the option of saving an emergency pot of cash, and I do have a credit card for emergencies, but i feel a bit twitchy not having insurance!

Has anyone had a similar experience? Did you manage to get cover with another company? How did having to confirm you'd been refused insurance affect you for other things like car insurance etc?

I know it's nothing personal, and i'm seen as too high risk by NFU now, but it's really upset me. I've just had horrendous bad luck, and I wish i still had the horses I've lost....

thanks
 
I have too many horses for insurance to be worth while I don’t worry about it... I just don’t over investigate and only treat things that are fixable - I am a human dr so have a good idea about this... but I’m well up in money terms over the years... perhaps put what you would have spent on premiums in a separate savings account or premium bonds and then if a big bill hits you’ve got that cash ready saved towards the bill.
 
You will have to declare their refusal to insure you as it will be noted on the insurance bureau database so even if you find insurance they may not pay out if you havent declared it. I would go back to NFU and ask to talk to your local agent in person ,not the bod at the end of the phone line and ask them to reconsider as they sometimes can influence the underwriters. This is indeed more common than you think and just goes to show that insurance is not a right and is a business risk decision for both sides at the end of the day. I suspect that your payouts may have come to many times the premiums you had paid and they wont be willing to take on that risk anymore, I know thats no consolation to you but to be frank its something they should have being doing a lot more of speaking as a member.
 
I totally understand that insurance is a business and they need to make money but I think this is really bad! Your claims if Ive read right were for horses sadly no longer with you so surely it should be new business with a new horse? Ive always been insured with various horses over the years as like you I feel a bit twitchy if I wasnt insured. Ive have had a couple of major claims but have probably paid more in premiums over the years than Ive been paid out. It seems insurance has become a bit of a lottery these days as I had a claim which resulted in pts refused by a major company despite them taking my premiums for years so I now often wonder why I continue to pay, albeit to a different company now as will they or wont they pay out when you need them most??
 
NFU seem to look at the owners history more than other insurers who look at the horse. I know of a quote that came back much higher for someone who had made several claims over the years than a quote for the same horse under a different owner name.

I've also made quite a few claims with NFU and got back probably 8 times more than I paid out in premiums and while they have never refused me insurance; whenever I do a comparison and ring round they come back over twice as high as all their competitors so suspect they are taking my record into account.
 
Its all weird, I just had house insurance refused based on flooding. I live at top of a hill, and there is no flooding locally. I had a claim, it was a crack in a pipe, no frost, interior only.
That was Saga, I/m with another one now, no problem with them.
 
Yeah, it’s so frustrating. I stayed with NfU even though their premiums were higher because they’d always paid out with no quibble. They told me today that the total they’d paid out to me was around £20k, which I totally appreciate is pretty high, and several times more than what I’ve paid to them. Equally there are plenty of people who’ve paid out thousands over the years and never had to make a large claim. I’m clearly just too much of a risk for them, even though it’s not my fault and has been for 3 different horses!

I’m going to try speaking to a few other companies and see whether they’d be willing to insure me despite my claims, and having been refused by NFU.

Otherwise I’ll have to put money into an account and try not to touch it.
 
It might be worth going through a broker as they may be more likely to know who to approach. You don't want too many refusals on your record. I used Julie Andrews insurance for many years. They had a blip when under new management but seem to be back on track again.
 
Nfu have altered their wording on the policy now as well.
It says they won't pay out on any pre existing issues the horse has and it looked like any issues that develop as a result of the pre existing issues are excluded.
So buy a fit and healthy horse or you have exclusions before you start off if I read the updated policy correctly.
If it's a lameness payout, the opposite leg is then excluded!
 
The-Bookworm said:
Nfu have altered their wording on the policy now as well.
It says they won't pay out on any pre existing issues the horse has and it looked like any issues that develop as a result of the pre existing issues are excluded.
So buy a fit and healthy horse or you have exclusions before you start off if I read the updated policy correctly.
If it's a lameness payout, the opposite leg is then excluded!
Click to expand...


This is true of all types of insurance and all insurance companies. Pre-existing conditions/issues should be declared or the insurance is invalid.
I would guess that the opposite leg lameness exclusion comes from the possibility that it takes strain whilst the injured one is recovering which can result in an injury further down the line in some cases.

OP, is it the vet cover part that is being refused or the whole package?
 
catkin said:
P, is it the vet cover part that is being refused or the whole package?
Click to expand...

It's the whole thing - I asked whether i could just have vets fee cover, and they said that the LOH was the main part of the insurance, so you had to have it. Even if i reduced LOH to the minimum of £1k they were still unable to insure me.
 
UptodateK said:
It's the whole thing - I asked whether i could just have vets fee cover, and they said that the LOH was the main part of the insurance, so you had to have it. Even if i reduced LOH to the minimum of £1k they were still unable to insure me.
Click to expand...
I asked to have this taken off mine as well, they refused.

Oddly they have decided that homeopathy is no longer included in the policy. My vets do not approve of that anyway so I have being paying for alternative treatments my vets wouldn't recommend we did.
 
The-Bookworm said:
Nfu have altered their wording on the policy now as well.
It says they won't pay out on any pre existing issues the horse has and it looked like any issues that develop as a result of the pre existing issues are excluded.
So buy a fit and healthy horse or you have exclusions before you start off if I read the updated policy correctly.
If it's a lameness payout, the opposite leg is then excluded!
Click to expand...

When I spoke to NFU about a potential claim they confirmed to me that they will not pay for pre-existing conditions or 'anything directly or indirectly related to anything previously claimed for'. Read into that what you will.
 
The Bouncing Bog Trotter said:
When I spoke to NFU about a potential claim they confirmed to me that they will not pay for pre-existing conditions or 'anything directly or indirectly related to anything previously claimed for'. Read into that what you will.
Click to expand...

Before my policy said that existing conditions were excluded.
They've now added in pre existing conditions etc. If I knowingly purchase a laminitic, that's excluded. Yes it would have been, but they've added wording that anything that arises indirectly or directly as a result of the existing condition is also excluded. I think that's how it reads. So any complications of being laminitic?






PicsArt_01-05-08.03.53.jpg
 
Several claims in short succession will often, as in your case, be sheer bad luck. 2015 was the first year I'd had in four years where I didn't lose a horse. But it can also indicate that the person who wants insurance has a habit of choosing horses which are unsuitable for what they do or how they keep them, or are cavalier about whether horses they buy are sound, insure unvetted and then just claim for treatment and/or PTS. That's more difficult than it used to be, but until there is a database of veterinary treatment held nationally under the passported name, still pretty easy. Unfortunately, good but unlucky people, like you, get caught up in the net when insurers protect themselves from the rest.

You might actually find not being at the back and call of an insurer liberating, like many of us do. I hope so.
 
ycbm said:
You might actually find not being at the back and call of an insurer liberating, like many of us do. I hope so.
Click to expand...

You know what, YCBM, I think you might be right there. After the initial shock of being refused, I’m actually starting to feel a bit relieved that I don’t have to worry about jumping through hoops, and can make my own decisions.
 
I had one of my 3 still insured through NFU at her owners request until this year. My others have been self insured (the c.£3000 per year I would spend to insure 3 young healthy cats and 3 relatively young and healthy horses to adequate level goes into a bank account for emergencies only). I’m loving the self insurance - I know they’re young and my vet fees will likely go up as everyone gets older, but I’m also very aware that at that point insurance premiums and exclusions go up, and having now saved well in excess of my £5k cover on the policy, I’m actually feeling much more secure for the long term than I would if they were insured and my continuing cover was at the whims of the insurers.
This year NFU pretty much doubled (to almost £1k) the cost to insure the loan mare - she’s not had a claim in about 6 years, and no health issues etc. I believe one of the triggers was that I had paid out some vets fees for one of my other horses. They also sounded a lot more cagey about whether they would cover issues in her legs unrelated to the injury claim she had years ago than they have in the past. She’s now insured out of my pot and 3rd party only through bhs along with my others, and I feel much more comfortable about the cost and long term quality of her cover than I did when she was insured.
 
Horse insurance is also slightly curious in that you sort of have to claim for everything you could, that even if you don't claim, the injury still gets excluded so therefore it makes sense to claim when if it was just a relatively small cost i'd rather have paid in case i could claim later for the same thing. If that makes sense.
 
The-Bookworm said:
Nfu have altered their wording on the policy now as well.
It says they won't pay out on any pre existing issues the horse has and it looked like any issues that develop as a result of the pre existing issues are excluded.
So buy a fit and healthy horse or you have exclusions before you start off if I read the updated policy correctly.
If it's a lameness payout, the opposite leg is then excluded!
Click to expand...
And even if you do, they will try their hardest to prove the condition was pre-exisiting. When I was having my trouble with them, having been a very loyal and cheap to them client of 15 years (only ever claiming £1k previously on another horse and having paid them 10s of thousands in insurance), they asked for a copy of my horse's flu page. Weird I thought, and they had not done this when I took out the policy, just when something went wrong. I phoned up his old vets to ask what NFU asked them and they said they had been asked if the horse had had any previous lameness issues with his previous owner. This made me so angry as they were basically accusing me of buying a lame horse and waiting 3 months before doing anything about it. I went to Ombudsman about it and as soon as I started that process, 6 months after my initial claim, they paid out. I made sure that I claimed for every single penny I could for that claim and left. My vets don't recommend them at all. I am with KBIS now and they have taken off some exclusions as my horse is healthy and he's now on Catastrophe cover as he's an OAP, they were very helpful.
 
Just as a quick update - I spoke to Julie Andrews brokers who were really helpful, and I could get insurance with Petplan. They don't require claim history on any previous horses - they're just interested in the current one. As I'd be insuring a new (hopefully healthy) horse with no previous conditions, it wasn't an issue that i'd had a number of historical claims with NFU and they'd refused to re-insure me. The premium is £1200 a year though......

I think I'm going to go with self-insurance as I think that will give me a lot more freedom, and as long as I'm strict about putting something aside each month, i'll be fine.
 
Why would previous horse claims be relevant?
This is the first horse ever insured.
Gosh £1200, I was shocked mine was £500 this year.
 
UptodateK said:
Just as a quick update - I spoke to Julie Andrews brokers who were really helpful, and I could get insurance with Petplan. They don't require claim history on any previous horses - they're just interested in the current one. As I'd be insuring a new (hopefully healthy) horse with no previous conditions, it wasn't an issue that i'd had a number of historical claims with NFU and they'd refused to re-insure me. The premium is £1200 a year though......

I think I'm going to go with self-insurance as I think that will give me a lot more freedom, and as long as I'm strict about putting something aside each month, i'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Go careful with Petplan, I had a few issues with them recently so switched to NFU. Their pay out rate is alot less than NFU.

All the best! I do think self insurance is worth it if you put quite a bit back each month. I was surprised multiple vet visits with their top lameness chap, full body x-rays, bute, steriod injections in hocks and neck (visited equine hospital) was all under £1100 when the bill came.
 
Aimeetess said:
Go careful with Petplan, I had a few issues with them recently so switched to NFU. Their pay out rate is alot less than NFU.

All the best! I do think self insurance is worth it if you put quite a bit back each month. I was surprised multiple vet visits with their top lameness chap, full body x-rays, bute, steriod injections in hocks and neck (visited equine hospital) was all under £1100 when the bill came.
Click to expand...

I had a similar experience with my old horse - wasn’t sure that the insurance would pay out due to a number of exclusions so vet treated him as if he was uninsured. Bill came to a lot less than I was expecting and vet was much more realistic with diagnosis/prognosis and treatment. It’s definitely doable, just be strict about saving!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top